The fragmentation of societies from within is clear: From Bogotá to Bangalore, gated communities with private security are on the rise.
This diffuse, fractured world will be run more by cities and city-states than countries. Once, Venice and Bruges formed an axis that spurred commercial expansion across Eurasia. Today, just 40 city-regions account for two thirds of the world economy and 90 percent of its innovation. The mighty Hanseatic League, a constellation of well-armed North and Baltic Sea trading hubs in the late Middle Ages, will be reborn as cities such as Hamburg and Dubai form commercial alliances and operate “free zones” across Africa like the ones Dubai Ports World is building.
The states are not about to give up control of cities. Most cities are in fact nothing more than a bureaucratic arm of the state, others are just vassals with an interest in preserving state power.
Absolutely agree with that. Come around here and see how great “federalism” truly is: being bullied and robbed by bureucrats all the way from Bruxelles to your home town. And the closer they get the more arrogant and spendthrift they are.
Annoyingly, wikipedia confirms that one of the books I almost purchased a few days ago @ the uses books place I frequent, Hedly Bull’s “The Anarchial Society: A Study of Order in World Politics”, goes into a bit of detail concerning neomedievalism.
Hopefully, I can find it again.
On topic, I think it’s more than coincidence that political theories mirroring or resembling panarchy are popping up / beginning to gain attention. If I ever had the time, I would think some sort of paper comparing the various theories (panarchy, neomedievialism, neocammerialism, anarchy, etc.) as possible new frameworks for the 21st century would worthwhile, especially if it takes the view of which would prove to be most beneficial after the global debt process is “over” (or greatly lessened) in (hopefully) about 15 or 20 years.
